A Human Rights Court in Accra has dismissed the application filed by Dr Papa Kwesi Nduom, GN Savings and Loans, and another for human rights infractions exhibited by the Bank of Ghana (BoG) in revoking the entity’s license.

The court said the central bank was carrying out its lawful mandate in the interest of the shareholders and by extension the public, and could not be faulted.

After the court cleared that the applicants had the requisite capacity and had properly invoked the jurisdiction of the court, the judge proceeded to deal, substantively, with the issues of discrimination, unreasonableness, unfairness, and violation of the administrative rights of the applicants.

On the issue of administrative rights violation, the applicant asserted that an honest assessment by the BoG would have proved that the GN savings and loans were solvent contrary to the Bank of Ghana’s assertion that the entity was not solvent.

The plaintiffs contended that if the debt owed by government was paid, the capital adequacy ratio would have been met.

“If the Bank of Ghana had taken into consideration the financial circumstances of the company, and the fact that government owed us, they would have seen that the company was solvent,” the lawyer said.

The applicant's dissatisfaction is based on miscalculation, and they claim that this amounted to a violation.

“The bank, as an administrative body, was unfair, unreasonable and irrational in its administrative functions, the lawyer for the applicant averred. No reasonable person faced with the same set of facts would have arrived at the decision taken by the Bank of Ghana to revoke its license.”

The applicant maintains that several actions to demand their money from government had failed and so it was unreasonable for the BoG to have revoked their license considering their circumstances.

The court dismissed the claim by the plaintiffs indicating that as an administrative body fortified by the Bank of Ghana Act, it was incumbent on the Bank of Ghana to ensure a strict supervision regime and once the applicants did not meet the threshold, and were not solvent at the time of revocation, their duty was to take the decision it took.

According to the court, the plaintiffs can take the matter of debt owed them by government with the Finance Ministry.

“It’s manifestly clear that the BoG took a reasonable decision to protect the public interest,“ the judge said.

On the issue of discrimination, the court concluded that the applicants were not discriminated against since other entities suffered a similar fate as that of the applicants.

The court said the applicant was not discriminated against and their complaints are unfounded and without merit.